权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Linguistic universals and the order of verbs in Germanic

日耳曼语中的语言共性和动词顺序

基本信息

批准号：
AH/I020292/1
负责人：
Klaus Abels
金额：
$ 4.23万
依托单位：
University College London
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Fellowship
财政年份：
2011
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2011 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FI020292%2F1
关键词：
Linguistic universals order verbs Germanic

项目摘要

Debates over the depth and provenance of linguistic universals are a central part of current linguistics. Their interest derives from the fact that they bear on the issue of how mind works, how diverse or similar all humans are, and what roles nature and nurture play in this. I will contribute to these debates by giving further empirical support to a particular set of universalist proposals. This will be achieved by studying possible and impossible word order patterns within the Germanic languages and dialects.Recent work motivates strong universalist claims about word order. Cinque (2005: Deriving Greenberg's Universal 20 and its Exceptions, Linguistic Inquiry) has argued that all attested neutral orders of nouns (N), adjectives (A), numerals (Num), and demonstratives (Dem) are simple permutations derived from a common underlying structural type. In English, as in many other languages, the order is 'these five public employees', i.e., Dem-Num-A-N, while in the Kwa language Gungbe, as again in many other languages, it is the exact opposite: N-A-Num-Dem. In a rarer type of language, for example the Bantu language Kikuyu, the relative order of demonstrative, numeral and adjective is the same as in English, while the noun comes first: N-Dem-Num-A. The exact opposite of this order is not attested in any language. Of the 24 logically possible orders of Dem, Num, A, and N, Cinque (2005) reports 14 as attested and 10 as unattested and suggests a simple, formal theory that generates all and only the 14 attested orders. The current project focuses on Germanic languages and dialects. In these languages and dialects, the order of verbs and verb-related elements is notoriously variable. The order of the verbs 'will', 'want', 'call' and the particle 'up' in the sentence 'John will want to call up Sue' is will-want-call-up, it would be the exact opposite in German: up-call-want-will. This contrast between English and German is reminiscent of that between English and Gungbe mentioned above. In Dutch the order comes out as 'up-will-want-call', where 'will', 'want', and 'call' come in an English-like order, but the particle precedes. This is reminiscent of the Kikuyu order in the noun phrase, which was English-like, except with the noun in initial position. The mirror image of the Dutch order, 'call-want-will-up', is never found in any language or dialect. This is again reminiscent of the absence of the reverse Kikuyu order from the cross-linguistic record regarding the noun phrase. The similarity between ordering possibilities in the noun phrase and among verbs in Germanic are striking and suggestive. I will investigate first, to what extent the variable orders found amongst verbs in the Germanic languages and dialects can be characterized formally in the same terms as the orders described above for the noun phrase. The research revolves around the empirical question whether in constructions that cluster together four verb and verb-related elements all and only the 14 expected orders show up in some Germanic variant or other. If this hypothesis can be upheld, the orders of verbs in Germanic can no longer be seen as a counterexample to one of the crucial proposals contained in Cinque's work: In the generation of neutral word orders, whenever an item (such as the noun in Kikuyu or the particle in Dutch) moves, it moves forward. Such a result would strengthen the universalist position considerably. The second set of questions concerns more subtle generalizations regarding the order of verbal elements. For example, while there are large word-order differences between the Germanic languages and dialects, there is no language or dialect where a participle could follow a hierarchically more prominent element while infinitives have to precede such hierarchically more prominent elements. Such generalizations from the literature willbe tested empirically and an explanation sought in structural terms.

关于语言共性的深度和起源的争论是当前语言学的核心部分。他们的兴趣源于这样一个事实：他们关注思维如何运作、人类有多么多样化或相似，以及先天和后天在其中扮演什么角色等问题。我将通过为一组特定的普遍主义建议提供进一步的实证支持来为这些辩论做出贡献。这将通过研究日耳曼语言和方言中可能和不可能的词序模式来实现。最近的工作激发了关于词序的强烈普遍主义主张。 Cinque（2005：推导格林伯格的通用 20 及其例外，语言学探究）认为，所有经过证明的名词 (N)、形容词 (A)、数字 (Num) 和指示词 (Dem) 的中性顺序都是源自共同基础结构类型的简单排列。与许多其他语言一样，在英语中，顺序是“这五名公共雇员”，即 Dem-Num-A-N，而在夸瓦语 Gungbe 中，与许多其他语言一样，顺序恰恰相反：N-A-Num-Dem。在一种较罕见的语言中，例如班图语基库尤语，指示词、数词和形容词的相对顺序与英语相同，而名词在前：N-Dem-Num-A。任何语言都没有证实与此顺序完全相反的情况。在 Dem、Num、A 和 N 的 24 种逻辑上可能的顺序中，Cinque (2005) 报告了 14 种已得到证实，10 种未经证实，并提出了一种简单、正式的理论，可以生成所有且仅生成所有 14 种已证实的顺序。当前项目的重点是日耳曼语言和方言。在这些语言和方言中，动词和动词相关元素的顺序是众所周知的多变。在“John will want to call up Sue”这句话中，动词“will”、“want”、“call”和助词“up”的顺序是 will-want-call-up，这在德语中正好相反：up-call-want-will。英语和德语之间的这种对比让人想起上面提到的英语和Gungbe之间的对比。在荷兰语中，顺序为“up-will-want-call”，其中“will”、“want”和“call”的顺序与英语类似，但助词在前。这让人想起名词短语中的基库尤语顺序，它与英语类似，只是名词位于初始位置。荷兰秩序的镜像“call-want-will-up”在任何语言或方言中都找不到。这再次让人想起关于名词短语的跨语言记录中缺乏反向基库尤语顺序。日耳曼语中名词短语和动词之间的排序可能性之间的相似性是惊人的和具有启发性的。我将首先研究日耳曼语言和方言中动词中发现的可变顺序在多大程度上可以用与上述名词短语的顺序相同的术语来正式表征。该研究围绕着这样一个实证问题：在将四个动词和动词相关元素聚集在一起的结构中，所有且仅 14 个预期顺序是否出现在某些日耳曼语变体或其他变体中。如果这一假设得到支持，日耳曼语中的动词顺序就不再被视为 Cinque 著作中所包含的关键建议之一的反例：在中性词序的生成中，每当一个项目（例如基库尤语中的名词或荷兰语中的助词）移动时，它就会向前移动。这样的结果将大大加强普遍主义的立场。第二组问题涉及有关言语元素顺序的更微妙的概括。例如，虽然日耳曼语言和方言之间存在很大的词序差异，但没有一种语言或方言可以使分词可以跟在层次上更突出的元素之后，而不定式必须位于层次上更突出的元素之前。文献中的这种概括将受到实证检验，并从结构角度寻求解释。